Every review here follows a completed, paid order. We publish the three- and four-star ones too, because a page of nothing but perfect scores tells you nothing.
We’ve been outsourcing blog posts for two years and need to rewrite every intro, but this one didn’t need anything. This one went directly to our editor. The writer noticed something the rest of us and probably the past writers missed, and that is a reference to “members” in an older post, which I attached to this brief. We swear by “members” and never say “customers.”
The writer sent me eleven questions before the client call and half of those were questions I would have never asked him. The finished case study begins with a number, which is the only part my sales team reads when case studies are shared.
Solid first version. You positioned us as a design agency when we are more workshop oriented. It took four comments for you to pull this off. I would have liked to see this happen the first time. Two rounds have been budgeted, so I only needed to use the one. No hard feelings.
Ordered eleven town pages and expected the same content with only the town name changed. Each one mentions something different from the ferry timetable, to the Tuesday market. I read all eleven, and was looking for any similarity between them. They are all completely unique pages.
In the brief, I said that the main reason for our returns was sizing confusion. The author asked to see the returns data in its entirety before getting started and then made sure to include a note on fit in each description. I guess whatever our returns are now, the copy will get a pass.
Our API documentation was written over an uneven four-year span. The author went through every single one and flagged six cases where our error responses were inconsistent with the description and raised them instead of just fixing them on the fly. That was worth the order.
Chapter seven got me stuck for almost a year, and the suggested structure finally helped. Great outline, but the email with it was a two-sentence filler. I had to ask for a paragraph explaining the order of the chapters.
Every figure on every one of the forty-two pages included a footnote. I checked nine of them individually — they brought me to the right spot. Detector reports got sent with the delivery email, and I didn’t need them, but procurement liked them.
Most people say they will pitch it at a 16-year-old level, and then write something for first-year undergrads to read. This is the first set of guides which stopped my students from coming back to me to ask for the meanings of the different sentences.
The quality I had no problems with. The timing was way off. I thought a 900 word how-to would show up in a day, and I had to use up the whole three days. My bad for not checking the delivery terms. There was one measurement that had to be fixed, and that one came back in a couple of hours.
I thought there would be a cheesy moment when the person had a flash of inspiration, but instead came back with three paragraphs talking about what the clinic does on a Tuesday morning. Our nurses said it was a perfect representation of what we do. That was the test, so I was pleasantly surprised.
The brief was more general than I expected; the writer gave me a heads up by stating this before constructing it. We had a 20-minute call. That also added to my time that I had not scheduled for this. Hence, rating this as a four rather than a five. However, it seems to be the strongest asset we have.
The buying guide compares our stock to a competing product and finds that the competitor is better for winter camping. I was going to request to remove that row, but I believe in transparency; it’s better to leave it in. Customers are now saying that comparison builds their trust in our products.
Sent over 8 of my posts as samples, and this sounds like me self edited and refreshed after a good night’s sleep and some cleaning up. That is exactly what I was paying for.
Each of the nine sessions across the five weeks brought the same line of questioning about the shop in 1987. I had to keep telling her there was nothing to say. Chapter four is the part of my memoir my daughter cried over.
Bid teams require mandatory answers, word counts, and criteria outlined in the headings. That is what we were missing. Refran, we have that so much covered in our house style that my tone drained out and I had to liven it before submission. It cost an evening, but at least we didn’t miss a requirement like those teams.
I’ve been reading in this area for a year and a half. This review found three new papers for me, including one from 2019 that completely contradicts what I’ve been saying. Annoying, but useful, and it’s what I paid for.
Our interviewed subject speaks with a style that is easy to modify into uninspired corporate-speak. The transcriber has authentic cadence, and does not rely on filler. The natural speech of a person is easier to understand. We have filled three more bookings.
The comparison page spells out where the alternative wins on price. The CEO wanted that line gone. I maintained it stays because a comparison that only flatters us is one nobody believes. The author had made the same argument in the delivery notes before I did.
Six weeks of internal dispute about the pricing copy settled the morning the draft arrived because it renamed two tiers and made the choice clear. Sometimes you need someone from outside the building to come in and say the obvious. The rest of the page just needed one comma.
The chair’s introduction and year-in-review section surpass all our internal drafts. Where it missed the mark: the writer did not draft when the finance numbers were pending. That resulted in a tight deadline for the final week. Other writers suggest using placeholder text to fill gaps.
Sixty category pages is the size of an order where you start to worry about how long it will take to get through about forty. I read all of them. The descriptions of the products in the categories of oud and rose, written by two different people, contain no common sentences. It was worth paying someone to do these descriptions.
12 members responded to the first newsletter and actually had something to say about the framing workshop. Our newsletter had never received a response, so that’s the benchmark I’m using. The half a percent that goes to tree planting is a nice line for our members even though it wasn’t the purpose of our order.
For my dad’s eightieth, I wanted him to have a short story written based on an old famliy vacation from 1974. I was not expecting a literary masterpiece since I just needed something to read to the family after dinner. However, there is a part where he breaks a deckchair and I didn’t even include that and it is just perfect.
Body copy hit the nail on the first draft. The headline tried to be clever with a pun, but it only made sense to the person who made the pun, and that was the only person who could appreciate it. I flagged it and had four alternatives by the next morning. I used the second. Missed the first swing, but the quick fix version was well received.
Corrections are often accompanied by notes, and about a third of the notes are short explanations. I’ve learned more about comma splices from this one document than from three years of tutoring and feedback.
Savings explainers like to use analogies, and this one shows us a table with two worked examples. Our compliance reviewer passed it with zero comments for the first time in the four years I have been here. This must be a first for them also. (I have never actually read a savings explainer.)
I assigned a primary and four secondary keywords. They are where they should be, and don’t look out of place. I also looked for conclusion statements and there was no repetition which is normally the first thing I look for.
One factual error: the page lists our whitening treatment as a single appointment when it should be two. Thin brief on my side, but I would have expected a query rather than an assumption. It was corrected in less than a day after it was flagged, and the rest of the page needed nothing else.
The final half page explains what the analysis was unable to confirm through public sources. Most vendors tend to hide that, or simply eliminate it. Our partners actually read that section first which is why the report was presented to the client without any changes.
First drafts, each ninety words. No “I hope this finds you well” openers, please. I liked that the first lines you wrote referenced a specific detail about each client’s business. It meant I actually had to provide a well-researched prospect list to begin the project. Well worth it.
Our releases happen every fortnight, and our notes have evolved into change logs. To keep things organized, the writer has noted what changed within a card or view and what changed underneath. Each note is a brief summary of the change. The biggest metric I’m interested in post release is the volume of support tickets. It always dips.
The tribute was heartfelt, but came close to ten minutes when I delivered it (I was supposed to stick to six). I removed it a night before because there wasn’t time to edit. Undoubtedly, it was my fault for putting it off. The words, however, were just right.
We threw away seven slides, and the traction numbers moved to slide three. Our first investor meeting after the change lasted twenty minutes longer than scheduled because the investors weren’t waiting for us to finish and were actually interested in what we were saying. You can figure it out from there.
A proper roundup is hard to do, and easy to fake, and this one didn’t. Each one explains where the pricing was verified and when it was checked. Two entries had notes stating that the writer could not verify some vendor’s claims. That is why we accepted it.
Six area pages, all decent. Each one gave information that was relevant to the area, not the town name which was mentioned twice. My only complaint was that I asked if eight was possible in the same time frame, and I received no answer until I inquired for the second time. The invoice was the same as the quote with the one percent, and it was itemized.
I gave them 400 support emails and said to grab 20 pertinent questions. I got 18 questions in return and an explanation as to why the other two were the same question. That explanation turned out to be really helpful in resolving tickets.
The sample size was 214 responses. More importantly, that information appears in the second paragraph of the report instead of being placed in an appendix. Percentages always retain the base number. There are agency reports that mean to mislead and do neither.
By the time October comes around, all Christmas gift guides have the same content. One of our guides features instructions on how to offer gift ideas to someone who is really hard to shop for, and customers seem to be sharing that one the most.
There were no countdown timers. There was no artificial scarcity. I was confident you would come through with the first offer. I was right. Your second email just asks about the grind size, and that usually throws us off as well. Do the grind sizes cause any confusion? In order to refine the details in the next email, please answer whether or not you are confused about the difference between the 5 or 10 grind sizes. Thank you.
Thirty articles with the same structure and with the same voice are difficult to develop for a knowledge base. Screenshot placeholders were described with prose instead of with tags. Unfortunately, our designer had to try to find them with some difficulty. This is a small thing, but I plan to put it in the brief next time.
Nothing went into the book that I had not agreed to. I am eighty one, and have been talked over by professionals my whole life. This writer sent me the transcript of every session and asked which parts I wanted left out.
The learning goals align with the scheme of work, and the differentiation notes are useful. It looks like you’re anticipating a classroom that settles in about two minutes, and two minutes is a dream. Most likely an easy fix for our teachers, but it shows a lack of recent teaching experience.
A lot of thought leadership articles outline a few positions and remain neutral. This piece takes a stand on procurement in the second paragraph and supports it for 1100 words. Two rivals have written answers. That was the goal.
I explained ninety legal terms without the trick of using the word being defined in the definition. Each of these terms has an example sentence to show how you can find the term being defined in a case. Our paralegals send this link to the clients instead of describing it over the phone.
Most case studies rush their client’s problem to get to the hero part. This one takes the trouble to describe, in great detail, the client’s loss of pallets in the warehouse. It does a good job in describing what we were up against, and by the time you read about what we did you actually give a damn. This inversion was the writer’s idea, not mine.
Nothing overstated our position, so I’m very happy. I actually prefer that to pretty. Two lines in the emissions narrative needed counsel to amend to our regulatory filing. That’s standard, not really a problem. Four because it took a week longer.
Even the question I would have left out: why does our refill cost more than the original bottle? The writer actually thought it would have been better to answer the question honestly because it is asked by so many people, and not answering it would seem worse than answering it. I think she was correct.
Each thread opens with the actual claim and spends the rest earning it — no “here is what nobody tells you” anywhere. Nine threads, eight usable exactly as written, one I rewrote because I had changed my mind during the process.
Ordering is clearly very good, and the screenshots are clearly explained. The guide assumes the customer has admin access, which a good number of them do not. We wrote a pre-req box ourselves in ten minutes. Everything else was complete.
That’s the review. The next night she asked for it again, then corrected me when I misread a line. Obviously, she has memorized it. The page has a certain rhythm that seems to help people memorize things.
I’ve seen a lot of one-pagers that somehow stretch to three pages. This is one page. It’s got eleven point font with a whole lot of blank space. The writer asked about what our reps are being asked in the first ninety seconds of a call and built the sheet around those four questions. No account to set up either, which suits our purchasing regulations.
The methods section appears to be written from the perspective of someone actually conducting the study as it addresses sampling, limitations, ethics, etc. The significance section was too general and would be much better if written specifically for my field of study, as only I know what would interest my colleagues the most. It actually led to less work for me.
Before our first writer began, they emailed to ask which of our two returns policies freight customers falls under. I’ve never been asked that before. The returned post had that distinction made in the second section, and I didn’t have to correct a single fact.
I was pleased the speech I wrote from prompts about my brother closely resembled me, but that was expected. The ‘caravan’ joke fit right where they placed it. I put off writing this for months.
The first pass of twelve product descriptions looked like a catalog from 1998! Stiff and very formulaic. Luckily, I sent back two examples of how we actually use customer language. That was on the money. I wish I would have slipped those examples into the initial brief.
I included around 900 words of my custom copy as a foundation. In return, I received back around 500 words and the description was more drawn out. The section describing pricing, which previously was rather vague, was replaced with a single, firm sentence. We shipped this variation the same week. The least interesting line on the invoice is undoubtedly the one percent add-on.
Getting housing data wrong can be frustrating. Our writer noticed two instances where the spreadsheet data contradicted the board pack data. Instead of trying to choose a side, he asked which one was right. That kind of caution is better than good writing.
I had tried for two weeks to justify to myself having a “gap year” out of studies, and to explain it in a way that doesn’t sound like I simply wasted my year. I got a revision of my explanation that made my “gap year” the most affirmative selling point of my whole explanation, and my facts did not even change.
Our old procedures were written by people who understood the process. These are not. They name each button on each step. Two of our newer drivers used them without even asking me questions, which has never happened before.
For the first outline, they misunderstood the true essence of the customer story. They believe that the cost savings were the true “win.” In fact, it was the speed of the migration. A quick 15-minute phone call cleared that up, and the completed case study was excellent. I would factor in a call at the beginning in the future.
Our changelog has little snippets about why the change happened, and that seems to have solved the issue of support receiving the ‘what does this actually do?’ tickets. I honestly never thought that release notes would give us the answer for that.
I applied to 11 jobs with my own application and received 0 feedback. I ordered 3 custom applications, and the third received a callback. The job ad mentioned a comfort level with ambiguity, and the writer focused the paragraph on a project of mine that was all about ambiguity.
Everyone said we should tell our story. The writer asked what a customer needs to believe before buying, and made a 280 word response. Our founder did the mildly offended response for about a day and now uses that in interviews.
I asked for some advice with a plot that I have been tweaking for years. The suggestion was to fix the mess in the middle and to just leave the ending the way it is. I guess they were right and I wouldn’t have arrived at that conclusion on my own.
I got three days of quiet hopes, which is what they promised, so I only have myself to blame. Your brief is well done with appropriate hedging where evidence is lacking. My director practically ignored the nine hundred words and marked two.
The risk of doing the same order size again is all pages coming out as the same three sentences shuffled. These aren’t that. The tent category mentions set up time, the boot category mentions break in time. Somebody must have read the description about what we sell. The half percent we give to tree planting is something that works well for a company selling tents.
Rewritten policy that is ninety pages long and uses plain English. Nothing important was lost in the process of softening legal language. Our employment solicitor changed only four words. This brings me satisfaction because it seems that the staff actually read the policy unlike before. I had lost hope on that.
Mostly excellent. Your improvements to the auth section are better than what our engineers wrote. Your pagination endpoints, however, were explained in the spec according to how they behave rather than how they are, which required two revisions. Our spec is incorrect in that area as well.
I have my own newsletter publication most weeks. I send the hard ones to my colleagues. No one on my distribution list has noticed the change. Someone responded this week saying that they think that was my best one yet. It was a bit of a hard blow, cutting it loose.
Writing the response was easier than answering the question. Unfortunately, we were unable to provide a detailed explanation for the middle tier. We decided to merge those responses as well. The new version of the page was clearer and described the two tiers of the plan with more detail. Our customer support email has been receiving fewer requests.
I’ve written and purchased a lot of feature copy, and most of it is vibes instead of verbs, which is a huge loss. This was not the case. It clearly stated what a feature did and what the change was in the system. It got our sales team reading it on the phone.
I had hit a wall on two papers behind paywalls. Rather than skipping them or paraphrasing the abstracts, the writer found the accessible preprints, used those, and said so in a note. Small thing. It is the thing that told me a person did this.
Our customer base has advanced knowledge of bikes. We covered what a groupset is in our opening guide. Our audience would find this condescending. I reported this, and the rewrite assumed this knowledge properly. Everything else was calibrated correctly, so this was more of a briefing fail on my end.
Two chapters about my mother that I had written as accusations turned into scenes. The writer didn’t cut anything. The writer just stopped explaining what I was supposed to feel and let the dialogue do its job. I have rewritten the rest of the book that way.
Sixty-two words including the signature. Our response rate went from something I would rather not admit to approximately one in nine. I requested three variants, and the shortest of the three won by a landslide.
Dull and exact manuals for machinery can be considered good manuals, and this one is. The writer didn’t try to make the lockout procedure engaging. The writer also asked for photographs of the actual panel rather than working from our CAD labels, which caught a mismatch in two switch names.
Four city guides, three of them perfect. The fourth said a museum had updated its winter hours last year. This was fixed within a day after I reported it. The others were unchecked, but they went ahead and double checked them. I do recommend this guide, but check the time sensitive items for yourself.
Compliance copy can be either overly vague or overly confidently wrong. This example is neither. The guide describes the discretion allowed by the regulation and the test to be used in those cases. In cases where the regulation does not provide discretion, the language is void and unambiguous. Internal Audit had no feedback.
I was dreading this, but the questions for the vows were incredible. They were way better than anything I would have thought of. One of the questions even asked what I had been wrong about, and that became the answer in the middle of the vows.
Reporting was actually good. Three sources, all legit, all reachable. Order was shot, with best stuff in paragraph nine. I moved it in twenty minutes instead of sending it back. I would order again with a clearer structure brief.
We anticipated the typical one-sided whitepaper on heat pump retrofits, but this one actually named the two building types for which the economics do not work. Sales Initially pushed back against this whitepaper, but it is now the asset type that converts best because engineers trust it.
My voicemails have bordered on the rambly side while my sentences have been fragmented. Your speech has referenced four of my voicemails, and you even quoted them verbatim. Granted, you didn’t even touch the other voicemails and sentences. This blatant disregard is how you should prioritize and frankly is the ratio you should have.
Two out of four outlets put your article out exactly like it was in our lead paragraph. Every other lead-in has either ignored or rewritten our releases. What’s notable here is that our lead-in this time was our measurement change, while in the past it was company achievement.
The customer we used in this example sent us a nice email saying it was the least stressful case study she’s had to do. This has never happened to us. I have to say the article is awesome, too. The customer liked the interview, but what I will remember is the process.
The content was clearly well organized. I asked for Harvard style referencing, but it was returned to me in APA style, which took one email and maybe half a workday to fix. That work, particularly the way it handled counterarguments, was unparalleled. The detection reports came along too, which is standard for my department.
Our applications typically answer a question that is broader than the one that is being asked. That was not the case on this application. All sections stayed within the word count and within the question. I am not claiming direct credit for this, but we got the grant. This was the best application we have submitted to date.
I was told that the slide with the market size was not helpful, and the traction numbers were on slide fourteen. I had to admit that was correct, and it wasn’t easy to hear. The updated story was now eleven slides instead of the previous nineteen, and I stop losing the room after minute four.
The first backsounds like press office posts. All of our founder’ posts are personal. That’s really why this account works, and I have to say, the second round was better. I still change a few phrases before I let them go. Still a good deal for the cost.
Twenty-two articles on our top ticket drivers. The writer requested redacted transcripts, and then described the problems in the way customers used the language – thermostat will not hold temperature, instead of thermostat calibration. Help center search finally started working.
I’m glad I to compared books that I thought flattered me. The writer offered three books that match what I wrote and explained the logic an editor would use when reviewing the list. That section alone made the purchase worthwhile. I am happy to say that two agents asked for the full manuscript.
We cater toward detailed donors. Our writer double-checked a participation figure that looked high, and we found that we double counted a cohort. The corrected number with a report footnote explaining how we found the error was sent out. The footnote we included helped us gain more trust than putting out a good number would have.
It was a good draft, but unfortunately, we weren’t able to take credit. We did, however, send back four photos and explained the pier to them all. The second draft also included information about the pier, room three’s low ceilings, and our no breakfast before eight policy. This one is officially on the site.
Most finance writers take the metaphorical pizza slice route. Our piece explained the math slowly and correctly, using the actual numbers we charge. Compliance signed it off, and they made zero changes. That has not happened in the three years during which I have done this job.
I couldn’t write it myself and had to ask for help two days before. It came the next morning looking plain and quiet with none of the words I was dreading. My aunt asked who wrote it and I said.
Nine of the twelve pages felt like they were town specific. Three were repetitive due to the same town name swapping, which is what I was trying to pay to avoid with this. They rewrote two of the three town pages with zero argument. The last one I rewrote myself.
Before drafting, the client sent over eleven questions. Two of the questions asked about failure states that we had never documented before. Responding to these questions took me a morning to complete, but now the internal notes have improved. The guide is the second best thing that came from this order.
Including the question regarding our return policy being more strict than most of our competitors. I would have just ignored this one. This was a huge help, and it answered the question and explained the rationale. As a result of this going live, we saw a significant drop in return disputes.
At a natural pace, the speech was about ninety seconds over the twelve minute mark. Editing it was simple because your structure was clear, but I shouldn’t have to. Our director called the content of your speech the best written thing that she has ever delivered.
I have compressed twenty years of shift work in to this submission. The writer wanted to know what I’d been promoted for, not what my job title was, so my CV is more of a progressive account than a list.
Two hundred words that make you want to read a quiet novel about a lighthouse keeper, without giving away that he leaves. Our previous copywriter gave that away in the first line.
We approached the task of container security with a four thousand word framework that each section can be removed and used as a standalone piece. The writer included a proposal of eight supporting articles as part of the submission, unsolicited. We accepted six of those.
This makes sense at the current price based on batch pricing. However, the generally low hit rate means that about twenty of these are very good and the rest trend toward serviceable filler. Very good steam balls are, and always have been, appreciated, and the second steeping one was one of the best examples, receiving more comments than anything we have posted.
Answering questions in the exact words and order provided gives a competitive advantage as evidenced by this response. We lost the bid on price, not the writing portions, and the buyer confirmed this in the debrief.
Our clinical reviewer found this health content to be both scientifically accurate and readable. They asked me to provide up to 25 inline references for everything I’d written, but I was only able to manage 50 percent. That said, the references were added to the remaining portions when requested. For future briefs, I will request more inline citations for my health content to be more clear.
Knowledge of the subject was excellent. The timings, however, were not. Three activities that would easily take fifty minutes were allotted thirty minutes time, which is something all teachers would notice. It was fixed after I mentioned it. Everything else, particularly the differentiation notes, saved our team a lot of time.
It’s difficult to begin writing to someone you haven’t talked to since 2011. I explained the situation. I got a careful response. It didn’t apologize for me or explain anything. She answered my letter, which is everything I wanted.
The writer emailed before starting to ask which returns numbers we were allowed to publish. This is the first time anyone has asked this of us. The email came back as the argument with the caveat inserted, and Legal cleared it with no comment.
I gave them 4 rambling paragraphs about my brother and a list of private jokes. They came back with a script that I can now say without getting sweaty. Two of the jokes were personal favorites. The other one I wrote, but that one didn’t land. — Keyword-only responses will result in a zero and notification to your instructor. Responses which do not discuss the assigned text will result in a zero and notification to your instructor.
First draft was so brochure like, I had to say we sell to procurement teams, so we’re talking about people who are allergic to adjectives. The second draft was better because it used customer’s wording from the interview, which is what I actually wanted in the first place. Just one more round and we got it right.
Our old landing page had six sections. This new one has three. The writer who was building the page was right about taking the founder story out. It’s a win when I see someone new to the page signing up.
I review external copy for a regulated lender, and that usually means deleting at least half of it. This had qualifiers in the right spots and no made-up stats. I only had to mark 2 sentences. That is the least I’ve marked on any outside first draft.
I had applied to 3 different midwifery programs with a dozen rewrites to the point that I had no idea what I was arguing anymore, and the writer kept the story of my grandmother, and removed the nursing stuff, which was boring, and I guess that’s why I got 2 interviews.
We hoped for 2 days on 40 short descriptions but got 3 which is the max they promise, so we have to take the blame for that. The copy explains the difference between porcelain and ceramic without having to explain it to the staff 2 times. Sizing questions to support have significantly decreased.
They requested access to our staging endpoint with read access and used it too. The auth section of your docs shows us the 409 error we return for duplicate idempotency keys. That error is not documented anywhere in our old docs. Contract documentation has never come back and educated me about my API before.
I published my second novel, but my own blurb gave away the ending. Theirs ends on the question the book actually is about. It’s 140 words and it took someone who read the manuscript, not skimmed it.
The first brief we received was too general. The writer noted this rather than trying to understand it himself. We did a twenty-minute call. Obviously frustrating that it was needed, still useful that this happened, as the finalized procedures reflect the way the warehouse operates. This includes the different procedures the night shift performs.
For the first time, the board didn’t edit the executive summary. It was written based on our original survey data, and included the finding we buried on page nine, that participation was flat, but retention had doubled.
They asked for something that didn’t include passionate or results-driven. I submitted 280 words about my poorly executed bridge inspection contract and the changes I made after the contract. It was an exposure draft. The hiring manager read it out to me during the interview. He said should have quoted the draft as an example of my work. I mentioned in the interview that I learned from this contract that I have to think more in advance and plan for the next steps which I hope he remembered.
Our newsletter uses humor to describe the office kettle. I had mentioned it in the brief, and it’s there used in the right way, in the right register. Subscribers interacted with that newsletter more than any other we published this year.
Our release notes went unread, but they serve the purpose of listing what breaks and what doesn’t when considering whether to upgrade. Two customers actually took the time to send thank yous in the same week, something that had never happened before.
The first set was warmer and used a lot of exclamation marks, more like our tone. I sent a few examples of our tone and the revisions matched, which should have been included in the brief. Well done for turning it around in two included rounds.
Project it to fifty people in a barn with terrible acoustics. Short. One idea each. It reached the back. I’ve since learned this was done with intention and was not just a matter of luck.
Coverage was really great. The synthesis section really nailed the hard part of this section. Half of our requested references came back in APA format when we asked for Vancouver, which cost me an hour to change rather than sending it back. Everything else was correct.
I expected a hatchet job. Instead, the page says where the tool is not as good, and recommends who we are best suited for. Lately, sales has been sending this to prospects. This only works because people think it’s a handy document, not marketing.
It’s been eleven years since I’ve spoken to you. No one else has ever passed the note to me and had me return a response entirely without blame. I sent it. He phoned.
We submitted our paper and a spreadsheet. Our writer said our sample size was too small. We modified the claim. It’s a slightly bruised ego, but better paper and nobody has criticized it in public yet.
Reading age was a key requirement and they nailed it almost everywhere. One paragraph still said mitigation, which no tenant uses. It took me about thirty seconds to change it myself. The remaining part is the clearest version of this page we’ve had in the last six years.
Patients read this at midnight and scare themselves. The piece we found describes the process step by step with the clear statement that it will be less painful than the toothache was. Our nurse also said that it’s what she tells patients, and now it is written.
Public-sector tender, forty pages, scored on the method statement. The writer read the scoring matrix and tailored the answer in that order rather than telling our story. We scored highest on quality for the first time. I don’t know if it’s repeatable but I’ll definitely be applying again for the next tender.
Two descriptions out of twenty used the same phrase and it is a phrase you notice appears next to each other in the navigation. Flagged it; it was fixed next week. The other eighteen were just fine.
I ordered an example essay to help with structure and also because I have a deadline. The construction of the sample essay really helped because each paragraph has its own role, and you can see the breaks between/joining of the paragraphs. My next essay also received a better grade.
Handbooks tend to be a Labor Ministry Requirement document. I was able to summarize this policy in a meeting without having to open this file. Our Employment Solicitor changed four words.
The descriptions were beautiful and about fifteen words too long for a one-page menu. I asked for them cut and got them back shorter and still good. Should have specified a character count. My fault, their patience.
We provided a recording and a rough transcript. What came back left the subject’s hesitations in the most important places, and removed them otherwise. They wrote to say that it was the first time they had read an interview of themselves that sounded accurate.
Everything we’ve made in house, every battle card, turned into three pages no one opened. This is one, with the two objections that actually show up and a decent answer for each. Adoption is the only metric we care about and it’s almost all there.
The cluster map was very helpful and helped us rethink that section of the site. Of the six supporting articles, we would rate five of them as strong articles, and the one article seems to have run out of research. That one has been resent, and we noticed an improvement the second time that article was submitted.
Most grant writing answers the question the applicant wishes had been asked. This didn’t. The sections refer to the funder’s text and the budget explanation fit our spreadsheet to the pound. We made it onto the shortlist.
Twenty years with four different job types and every version I wrote just looked like a list. They picked the common theme, which is that I overhaul supply chains that no one has touched in a decade, and put that at the beginning. Three recruiters in two weeks.
Eleven articles covering our top ticket drivers. They requested the original ticket text first, not the internal descriptions, and the difference is significant. The articles use the terms customers input into the search box. There’s been a downward shift of about a fifth in the volume of contacts on those topics.
The reported elements and the interviewed elements were both well communicated. The middle third went a bit offtop, so I reorganized it instead of waiting for a revision. We were on a deadline tonight to close the issue. With another day I would have sent it back to you. Great writer, short deadline, my choice.
It now solves the issue of week three that some buyers experience when onboarding. We have seen a reply rate increase from under two percent to nine. After, I thought I could better it, but I made it worse by trying to rewrite it twice.
Most writers have their own way of talking. Each of the twelve writers here has their distinct voice. This is one of the first things I noticed about your publication. I’d guess this creates a lot of overlap among the writers and likely involves some good editing. Your style guide is fourteen pages. I’m sure they read it all.
The steps are detailed and match interface options precisely. I thought images were included, but they aren’t, and it even says that. It just wasn’t obvious where. It took a day to add them, which is still better than the vendor supplied documentation.
The author noted in their original post that they had made the brine and that the salt amount in our notes was not correct for the volume, which it was not. They did a self correction and rightfully so, it is the bare minimum that writing about food gets right.
I wanted to say we have a bad quarter without causing a huge panic. The draft says the number, the two reasons, and what will be done to improve next quarter. Our biggest investor said only: good.
The old sequence tried to cover everything in the first email. This version pushes the integrations message to day four, which is when people are more prepared for it. There has been a noticeable increase in activation for day seven and a decrease in week one support tickets.
The neighborhood description is really detailed. It has the name of the bakery, the swimming pool, the school catchment, etc. The transport part was pretty vague, and I had to include the actual bus routes. It was a small fix, but it is usually the first thing buyers ask about.
A fifty-page strategy document turned into two pages that our chair read on a train and understood. The hard part is figuring out what is key and leaving the rest out. It is clear that someone made the decisions and did not just evenly condense the document.
Our audience left before 40 seconds because it was too slow. The section after the two minute mark is very good. A colder open was requested and we delivered and the drop off on the retention graph finally flattened where it use to be a steady decline.
We asked if we could round the figure and be allowed to say that it was approximately ninety percent. The writer came back and said that the data showed eighty-six percent, and asked if we wanted to publish eighty-six percent or tell the story of the gap. We published eighty-six percent. That was the best use of our budget.
From the twenty-two lectures in my employment law module, I’ve got forty pages of notes to revise. Cases in each principle are listed without regard to lecture weeks, which is how the exam lists them.
Re: Packaging The front panel is perfect. The back panel comes in at a clinic-like register that is a bit at odds with our label design. I sent the packaging, which I should have done first. The second version fit.
We have never recorded our three architecture talks but we have now. One of the teams who take note of things and join in a session and then compile a summary of the two positions once we’ve made our decision. Saw that as a good opportunity to strengthen their practice so no longer have any new hires asking questions. Parent 1: rewr22567 Parent 2: autograder
The sequence of chapters in the book solved a problem I had been stuck on for months, which was that the theory appeared in the beginning. Now, it’s situated at the back. It also has flat chapter titles and I renamed all of them. I believe chapter titles are a personal preference, and I’d much sooner have a solid structure and rename titles.
I expect an outline to be long and complex, and I’ll eliminate about a third of the text. I cut two full paragraphs. I appreciate a clear and concise outline. Each image/subheading has its purpose/context. I also appreciate that the FAQ provides answers to actual frequently asked questions, rather than the answers that might fit a certain keyword.
The release covers the number first, and puts the CEO quote in the fourth position. It was picked by two industry magazines. One modified six words. I have been a writer of releases for 15 years, and that has only happened to me on two occasions.
Six guides delivered right at the end of the promised window. If you are planning a launch, expect to plan for three days, not two. The guides provide honest comparisons between the products, and indicate when the cheaper option suffices, which our clients appreciate.
Module text that thinks the reader is both intelligent and new, which is a harder combo than you would think. The exercises build up appropriately. Our tutors have quit writing extra handouts, and that is the only feedback I trust.
Explaining compound interest to those who left school at sixteen is difficult and this mainly tackles the issue. I requested and was given one worked example with real numbers. I wanted three, so I made two adjustments. Your definition of APR is the most comprehensible I have come across in any context.
The writer emailed before beginning the draft to ask about the churn data we presented to the board. In our slide deck, there were two data points, and they had a discrepancy which no one has pointed out to me before. The draft used the correct number and flagged the discrepancy in a footnote.
The first draft was a bit more formal than our usual blog posts, but after sending three links to older posts they landed the revision. The second version was genuinely good, and the section on internal linking was better than what I would have written. Just budget for that first round.
Forty descriptions for ceramic planters. The writer pointed out that our drainage hole dimensions vary on the spec sheet and asked which was correct before writing a word. This probably seems small to you, but it would have saved me from dealing with returns.
I have bought some market reports that cite nothing at all. This one footnoted every figure back to a source I could open. One statistic could not be verified so they left it out and told me why, I would rather have that than a confident number I cannot defend.
The writing is warm without being cringe, exactly how I wanted it. It did take the three days to complete and I was hoping for two. This is my fault for not asking about the turnaround time. I have no complaints about the writing.
Most writers omit error response text, or post the status codes with no surrounding context. Ours explained what they thought the caller did wrong with a short response per status. Because of this explanation, our support queue for that endpoint has gone quiet.
I had managed to write around 40 thousand words. Unfortunately those words didn’t provide any structure. When I received the feedback on this, it contained a merged chapter, one chapter completely removed (along with an explanation as to why) and the additional feedback stated that the chapter that had been removed was essentially doing the work of three chapters which I had already written. It was a bit painful to read, but correct.
Five emails, four landed first time. The fourth leaned on urgency in a way our brand does not, and I said so. It was rewritten within a day and is now the best performer in the set. I’m most likely working with too general of a brief on tone.
28 sources, this time grouped by methodology rather than in order which I requested and rarely get. Two of the papers I hadn’t found. My supervisor only commented on my own framing.
This how-to is for a setup that changed in the last release. The author must have done it because step 6 references a dialog that comes up only if you skip the optional plugin. You can’t fake that detail.
Typically, the risk register that accompanies the feasibility study has generic entries. Ours had six risk items, each of which was linked to something in the documentation I provided, with one of them being something I had not even thought of.
It became clear that our brief would only suffice briefly. Then we spent the next twenty minutes on a call. This was annoyingly time-consuming. Fortunately, our guide became the best page on our site, so we should have the call first next time.
The proposal was written with the scoring matrix in the tender document in mind, not a general pitch. Each section corresponds with a criterion. Whoever did this has actually studied a public sector tender before, which is rare.
I sent a folder of interface screenshots and asked for callout text. Every caption matches what is actually visible in the image. Sounds basic. I have paid three other people for this and had to correct half the captions each time.
Good job overall. The opening analogy of our product being like a filing cabinet is probably going to be viewed as condescending to a bunch of engineers. I flagged that, and I got a different replacement for that opening analogy a couple of hours later. They kept all of the other text as is.
Twelve posts drafted from an hour of interview notes. Our CEO reads those briefs and says yes without modification, which has never happened with an outside writer. He has a habit of starting sentences with “Look” and that is in there.
This is about reading level. A lot of people, including most writers, become inadvertently more formal after around page two. This piece retained the level of formality throughout. I checked it with a class before approving it.
Three of the competitors are private and their numbers are not public. The report states this explicitly and cites what can be observed, pricing pages, job postings and packaging changes. Because of that, I trust the other parts of the report more.
Body copy was spot on, but hero headline was off. It explained who we are, rather than what we do for the customer. Perfect in the second attempt. Two rounds are included, so it was free, just a day’s wait.
Nineteen category pages. I read them back to back, always expecting the template with the noun swapped out. They are each genuinely different from the rest. Different structures, different openings. That was what I was paying for.
I asked the guide to be assembled in a way that a frustrated customer would think. It was harder than I expected, but it came back perfectly with the answer that half of the customers try - rebooting - placed at the begining.
Nothing happened for the first day and a half, which made me anxious, since I assumed they would start immediately. Then it came, and slide seven finally explains our wedge in a sentence I have been failing to write for a year. I think some communication during the wait would have helped.
Six hundred words with nothing in them that exists purely to reach six hundred words. Our newsletter has a hard scroll limit and every writer before this one padded the middle to hit the count. This one just stopped when it was done. J L
My mother finished reading all nine chapters over four months. Impressively, she did it without knowing I had someone else type it. The writer sent questions after each chapter to eliminate guessing. Of all the things I have written myself, chapter six is the best.
Ten out of eleven pages seem to give actual descriptions of the neighborhood based on a nearby transit stop or a local market. The eleventh reads as a filler, and I imagine they made it up because they ran out stuff to say about a place with little to none. It’s an honest problem. I would still order again.
Being a substitute is easy when you have good lesson plans. The lesson plans I’ve purchased before have realistic time estimates for their forty-minute activities falling into thirty-five-minute sections. There are clear back up activities written for the long sections. Clearly, someone has been in front of a classroom before writing the plan.
I provided our sales team’s top five objections and asked if the pricing FAQ could address them without being defensive. It seems to accomplish this. In particular, the answer to the refund question is provided in two sentences and does so without beating around the bush.
The narrative was strong, and the board approved of it without any changes or comments. Two chart captions had the wrong year, and while I can say I caught it, I shouldn’t have to. They fixed it within an hour of me pointing it out. The rest of the report was in good order.
For six releases, our change log buried a breaking change in the release note, behind six other features. The writer has chosen to put breaking changes at the top of the release not with features. That makes obvious sense. It should have been done long ago. And we’re down to the last one!
I shared 4 discovery call recordings. The next version of the script had phrasing that our best sales rep says naturally, which means most of the team doesn’t have the normal eye rolls for a new script. That is the whole trick and most writers don’t bother.
I needed a write-up and got a list of questions, which I ended up copying completely. Question 9 opened a topic that the person had never publicly discussed. The edits of the transcript kept her cadence.
Email subject lines, which clear security quickly and interchangeably, are the most expensive opportunistic part of the email. That’s why I’ve asked for a second set. The replacements were an improvement, but I still wrote two of the twelve myself. The bodies, where there was the most potential to improve the email, were worth the money.
An interview before this writing took an hour and had more to do with other things than my grades. The feedback that followed includes a lead with an example I would have thought too small to cite. I received an offer.
Section one states the argument in its second paragraph. Every other whitepaper I have commissioned has spent a page and a half discussing the significance of the topic. This one assumes the reader knows and respects them.
I was given 22 unique questions after I requested 25, and there were 3 questions that were related to each other. I took care of the merging process in 10 minutes rather than sending them back. Everything that stayed is of high quality and was very precise regarding our deposit terms.
I described my vision of a happy ending. Now, I have their version in return which is quieter and more sad. They included an explanation, a reasoning behind their choice, and a way for me to have it my way by writing a different (happy ending) version if I prefer. I kept their original.
I got a rough draft for the pillar page that included suggested anchor text for all eight supporting articles that I mentioned briefly when I gave them the brief. I did not include that in the brief. That saved me two days of work.
It is ninety pages, and it is accurate throughout. Each of the safety warnings is written as compliance would want it. The glossary contains only thirteen terms, and I’d expected around thirty. I asked, and they said the brief didn’t specify a count, which I understand.
Every product included in this guide exhibited the right price and quantity status on the date of publication. I have had cases of gift guides delivered to my door containing products that we stopped selling during the spring.
One page was the brief, and one page is what was delivered, not one and a half pages in nine-point type. The cuts were the right cuts. Our methodology section went from four paragraphs to two sentences and lost nothing a prospect needs to see. The invoice was the quoted writing price plus the one percent fee, exactly as promised.
We received delivery around the end of day three. I based my weekly schedule around my day two expectations, which was an assumption, not their guarantee. The instructions are thorough, and they are right to be careful considering the different aspects of our process that might change from one area to the other.
Thirty captions. About eight of them are a single sentence and those are the ones that actually performed. Whoever wrote these understands that the photo is actually doing the work. No hashtags were used. Half of their one percent fee goes to planting trees, which our customers actually cared about more than we expected.
Your proposal has passed our committee on the first read this time. Our reviewer said the sampling rationale was clear in your proposal. It is good that the originality reports came with the submission email without having to request them myself since it matters more than it should in my department.
Each claim in the front section connects to a statement in the back section. Normally, our auditor finds and notes between four and five unclear sentences in the chairman’s letter. This year, there were none.
They took the request to avoid the usual family and ping pong nonsense seriously and a brief paragraph I wrote on the on-call rotation certainly needed my editing efforts before publishing it. It was my fault for the brief and I prefer to approach it like that, at the beginning of all things, rather than all the other things coming first without it.
My novel took four years, and the back cover took three sentences and had me stumped for six weeks. The writer must have read the full manuscript (instead of the synopsis) which I know because the copy references a scene from chapter fourteen.
I dropped all nine samples in a fresh workspace, and they all compiled. Two included comments that pointed out a gotcha with our SDK that isn’t documented, so I added those comments to the documentation.
I always struggled with creating the right sequence, but these seven emails move from helpful to salesy at a reasonable pace. The note on timing was a generic, boilerplate suggestion. I only bring it up because the rest of the emails were customized.
The writer was able to successfully deliver the requested copy, but also took the time to point out that including nine form fields broke the promise within the headline. That’s not their job. They’re correct. We reduced it to four.
Thought leadership is typically an overview of what is already commonplace. This essay takes a stance in favor of warehouse automation, and even has a paragraph in addressing the automation argument. Given this pushback in the comments, that is actually the goal.
Sizing concerns came back addressed in very vague terms rather than our standard size guide because I had completely failed to attach it. As soon as I provided the guide the next step response came in early the following morning and it was spot on. Half the wait blame was on me.
Briefing papers tend to fail by being complete rather than useful. This one leads with the decision required, gives three options with the trade-off for each, and puts the background at the end where it belongs. Our institute requires AI-detection reports on file and they came attached to the delivery email.
They’re not summaries. Each entry explains how the source relates to my argument and where it contradicts another source on the list. Forty entries. It reorganized my reading rather than recording it.
Writing case studies with customer sign-offs is the most challenging part of my job. This time, I wrote sections in a customer sign-off note. I sent one email instead of four. Case study sections remained approved as is.
Order something, read it, then tell us the truth about it. We publish the criticism as well.